Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 99 17:46:43 PDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:15:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:59:02 -0500
>From: Terry Evans <tevans@tranquility.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>Date: Fri, 01 Oct 99 13:12:18 PDT
>>>Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:06:58 -0500
>>>From: Terry Evans <tevans@tranquility.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>>>Date: Wed, 29 Sep 99 22:30:23 PDT
>>>>>Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:51:54 -0400
>>>>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>>>>>From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com>
>>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>>>>>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:01:05 -0500
Mr. Evans, with apologies to patient and gentle listfolk:
>>I don't think you're a bad guy. I can tell as much from other
>>posts you've made, unrelated to our dispute. It's my judgment
>>you simply stepped into something without realizing what you
>>were getting into. I guess the old warning applies: Look before
>>you leap.
>(You are even condescending when you feign niceness.)
Actually, it wasn't meant condescendingly. I guess that's what I
get for trying to be a nice guy. Okay, I've learned my lesson.
>First, I don't care what you think of me, caring what someone
>thinks comes when you respect that person. I don't respect you
>any longer. (I know, Booo hooo).
I am crushed. Life has now lost all meaning and purpose. How
can I go out into the world and admit to people that ... uh,
what was your name again? ... oh yeah, Terry Evans ... doesn't
respect me? I guess I'll just have to crawl into a cave.
>You are part of the problem with Ufology not the solution.
Nah, I don't think so. As far as I can tell, you're neither.
I'd never even heard of you till this exchange began. Exactly
what _have_ you done for this field, by the way, besides trash
those who really have tried, in their admittedly imperfect human
ways, to advance ufology? Want to match credentials with Bruce
Maccabee and me? Or are you going to try to argue that having no
credentials at all affords you superior virtue?
>There has always been a private elite within Ufology who have
>controlled who did what, and what information was released back
>to the to the field investigators who did most of the
>collection. This was mostly MUFON. As for CUFOS, I know from
>past personal experience, that there is a clique.
I'm afraid the meaning and significance of the above are unclear
to me. Unless you're reviving that ancient paranoid fear that
"elites" within ufology suppress information in an effort to
keep all others in the dark, no doubt at the behest of their CIA
or New World Order masters. (Yes, we elites in ufology have
fleets of black helicopters at our beck and call. Next time you
go out the door, it might be a good idea to scan the skies.
We'll be watching you.)
Simple fact of the matter is this: It is both the glory and the
tragedy of our field that anybody (even you) can call him- or
herself a ufologist and find a forum, whether a newsletter, a
website, an e-list, or a media interviewer who will quote the
self-described expert. Under these circumstances -- full, even
anarchic, free expression, in other words -- everything and
anything gets said, printed, broadcast, and otherwise
circulated, even if overwhelmingly it is ... uh, silly stuff.
>Third, I have no idea who you are talking about, but the person
>you think is my "source" is not my source on you and Gulf
>Breeze. My source was then and is now, a CUFOS insider. (Part of
>the non- existent clique.)
You know what? Since none of what your alleged source alleges
happened, I can state with supreme confidence that I don't
believe you for a second. I think you're making this up. In
fact, I am certain of it. That makes you a big ... uh, fibber.
>Fourth, I firmly believe that you did not want to step on Dr.
>Maccabee's toes regarding Gulf Breeze. (That should probably
>include Mr. Hopkins since he wrote a chapter.) Dr. M was then
>and still is a major player in the Fund. And while the Fund is
>supposed to be non-partisan its not nice to piss off people who
>someday you might need.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything, so long as it
suits your purposes, even if it does not correspond in any
recognizable way with events in the real world. And you expect
me -- or anybody who knows better -- to take you seriously? Is
it your position that just because you "firmly believe"
something, it must be true?
>Fifth, I know exactly what I stepped into.
And I know exactly what's on the bottom of your shoes, and
believe me, it doesn't smell like roses.
Jerry Clark